Hello, dear SEC readers. James Marks here. Glad to see you back. Disclaimer – I’m using lots of pics I didn’t create in this post. If you want credit, just send me a message.
I’m supposed to rest today. I caught a cold and feel as if I had been foreclosed 8 times. Nevertheless, I’m glad I don’t use Victoria’s Secrets underwear (thongs are so uncomfy), and I don’t look like a complete moron, so I guess it could be worse. Sleep should be in order, but how on earth am I supposed to do it when I feel as if I had something choking me, and can’t breathe at all? (a feeling Casey will, with some luck, soon experience on a daily basis.)
So, since I can’t sleep, don’t like soccer, and am fed up with Rocky and Bullwinkle re-runs on Boomerang, I’m going to rant about some stuff I can barely understand. In my defense, though, it is my belief this crackpot theory isn’t meant to be understood – it was designed to make deadbeat assholes feel better about them not paying back their debts. Casey, of course, being the prime example.
Contracts by tacit agreement? “There is a way to excercise our power to contract while staying in honor with all the procedures / obligations in place ?” YES ASSHOLE, IT’S CALLED “PAYING YOUR DEBTS ON TIME”, MORON. IT WORKS EVERY FUCKING TIME.
Let’s try to make sense out of this post. Casey mentions a social contract. For those of you who don’t know the stuff they don’t want you to know (but ought to, anyway), a Social Contract is the basis of every state in the world. Social order is mantained via the creation of a State. It is at this moment where the individual stops being a sovereign entity (where have I heard that term before?) and become subjects of the public law.
A couple of minutes later it all was clear to me. Casey is arguing that society follows tacit agreements, like social contracts (nowhere did you ever sign a contract stating you were going to obey the police and not run red lights, did you?) all the time; and I’m assuming he considers his silence on the subject as proof he has agreed to it. SO… this opens a can of worms. 1) What happens if he declares he’s not bound by said contracts, thereby breaking the agreement?, and b) What may stop him from trying the UCC / Strawman bullshit and stating that silence equals acceptance in every situation? Don’t believe me?
It’s time to deeg dip into the secretz they don’t want you to know about. According to this document, there’s a “Universal Principal” (principle, in case you are wondering) that deals with the most basic of human interactions – and yes, they consider “buying, selling or trading” as a basis for survival; the law that applies here (the “Commerce Law”) is simply “treat others as you’d like to be treated”. Interestingly enough, the “Universal Principal” is considered to be above the “Common Law”, which deals with the judicial system. Even farther below are the governments, which can only create laws to facilitate commerce between the States. And, see that spot on your carpet? Well, underneath it are corporations, such as the United States of America, which can only control… yep, you guessed it. Your strawman, since only the Common Law and Universal “Principal” can control the sovereigns. Call me crazy, but I begin to sense a pattern here, which basically says “I’m above everything else. In case of any doubt, see my first sentence”.
Now, here’s where things get interesting. Commerce Law, according to these lunatics, is far more powerful than everything else because all nations on Earth were built upon it according to the Bible (oh, so that’s why Casey feels this is in-line with his Semi-Xtian beliefs!), and it’s above the judicial system, the government and the corporation (how convenient!). And, in commerce, your “word is your bond” (fuck, where have I read this before?); the truth is sovereign, and the truth is always expressed in a form of affidavit (bonus points if you already know where this is headed)… and, in Commerce Law, “He who leaves the battlefield first loses by default”, and “he who does not prove its claim is a shithead and loses”. Furthermore, this is all true because the writers of the article cite numerous out of context Bible quotes. So, if you live in a State where Buddha or Mohammed are your deities, though shit. The Bible quotes apply over whatever your scriptures may say on the matter.
Check this example of a “tacit agreement” in action.
IF THIS AFFIDAVIT IS NOT PROPERLY REBUTTED WITH A COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ITS MAILING, ALL PARAGRAPHS NOT DENIED SHALL BE CONFESSED AFFIRMED, BY SUCH DEFAULT, AND SHALL BE ACCEPTED AS DISPOSITIVE, CONCLUSIVE FACTS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY-INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AND/OR STATE TAX AGENCY WHEREIN THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR AND/OR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR OTHER PROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY, HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AND “FAILED TO PLEAD.” ALL COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS MUST BE SIGNED WITH THE VALID LEGAL NAME OF THE RESPONDENT. FICTITIOUS OR INCOMPLETE NAMES OF RESPONDENTS OR THOSE NOT CONTAINING COMPLETE LEGAL FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST NAMES AND EMPLOYEE NUMBER AND PHOTOCOPY OF DRIVER’S LICENSE SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID RESPONSE BECAUSE NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED.
Translation: Casey is going to ask for something stupid from the banks regarding his mortgage, he will not receive a response, he’ll state that, by “tacit agreement” the bank has lost its claim, and he’ll recover his house. There’s only one problem with this theory: it’s built on the bullshit argument that anything like Commerce Law exists, and that it’s recognized on a worldwide level by every institution on earth. Kinda like telling your mom and dad that you are absolutely sure Santa Claus exists, so you expect your Christmas tree full of presents the next morning.. when you are 30 years old. Things simply don’t exist because we wish hard enough for them. And that is what Commerce Law is – wishful thinking that something, somewhere, will save my ass.
Amazingly, we can use the above IRS tactics to our advantage using the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.)! Their incompetency can actually help us establish an irrefutable fact in court. Recall that in the world of commerce and under the Uniform Commercial Code, the unrebutted affidavit or claim stands as truth. An affidavit is a written document signed under penalty of perjury, witnessed by a notary public, and sent to the IRS with a Proof of Service to demonstrate that it indeed was sent. If everything we send the IRS is an affidavit and if they refuse to rebut it or don’t identify who is rebutting it, then our affidavits will stand as more than adequate proof of the truth in any tax proceeding in court, regardless of the subterfuge and rhetoric used by DOJ lawyers we might be fighting against.
Oh, but what about the UCC, the Universal Commerce Code?
The Uniform Commercial Code was established in 1952. It’s main purpose is to regulate the commerce among all States of the Union. That is the non-tinfoil hat definition of the UCC; no rear-admiral of the pirate seas stuff. It’s merely a set of laws that control the way entities between States are to behave during a commercial transaction. But, then again, what fun is reality when you can indulge your fantasies with a good conspiracy theory? Read page 12 and enjoy a logic gap so huge even Goatse is jealous – the UCC was written among members of the United States, so “it’s the supreme law of the planet”.
So, the theory goes, the USA is a bankrupt corporation that goes by the name “District of Columbia”, and occupies a territory near Virginia, or Maryland. I’m not sure at this point. So its “power”, as defined by the UCC, is that of a mere company, just like McD’s (except that Ronald isn’t bankrupt, and he can ask you “Do you want fries with that order?”, just like Casey should). Don’t forget this paragraph – it’ll come in handy later on this post.
Now, remember Cap’n Casey (the guy on the first pic)? What does an Admiralty, and the sea stuff have to do with anything? I wondered about that myself. Well, apparently the USA is a corporation, which was controlled by the Vice-Admiralty Courts – guess what they did? Control the Queen’s possessions beyond the seas, of course! Are things clearer now? No. I guess I need some more cough medicine. There, that did the trick. Apparently, the USA never became independent of the British (it was just a “commercial venture” between the colonies and the Crown, and no, I shit you not), and our courts are direct descendants of the Vice-Admiralty Courts, and are ruled by the same laws. And so, the people are either “sovereigns” or dependants of the British Crown due to commerce law.
The “Accepted for Value” shit we laugh so much at has a lot to do with this. Accepted for Value basically is a conditional acceptance; a “contract by tacit agreement”! (finally, this is starting to make sense – if you are a retard, that is). It means you accept something, but people have to prove the value of whatever claim they are making. Again, it’s kinda like “I fucked your sister, she has a babby now, but you have to prove you are an uncle. I’m waiting”.
I swear I tried to understand the Strawman concept, but it’s far too stupid for me to make any sense of it. The thing is, the other concepts had some basis on reality – the information available about the strawman is simply too far fetched to even comment about it. Nevermind, I’m feeling better now, so I’m going to talk a bit about the Strawman. Remember when I mentioned that the US of A is, basically, the equal of any other corporation on America, according to the UCC? Well, you have to wonder what is it that binds you, as a person, to a corporation you never joined. AHA! That’s where the Strawman comes in. Since the Corporation isn’t related to you, they created a fictitious entity in your name (the Strawman), in ALL-CAPS, and they (you know, “those who don’t want you to know things”) bind you to the banking system and the corporation. This is the point where you need to break the link between your Strawman and your real self. Since I’m far too tired by now to keep on writing, I’ll leave you yet another link to study at your own leisure. It completely debunks the strawman myth.
So, there you have it. I just lost all day writing about a bullshit theory that a bright 11 year old would immediately discard as a scam. Next time, I’ll write about the physical impossibility of Santa Claus, complete with eyewitness reports.
Maybe I should charge for this information,
June 13th, 2010.